Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that it had been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the staff member had engaged in harassment and abuse of authority, used her office for personal reasons to prejudice the position of a colleague, disclosed sensitive information, failed to report the possible misconduct of others, used a personal e-mail address contrary to the applicable provisions, and exchanged inappropriate messages about colleagues.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that regardless of whether she had been a whistleblower engaged in a protected activity, there was no evidence that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings had been based on credible evidence when it determined that the staff member¡¯s son had contracted Covid-19; he had been treated under the supervision of her primary medical care provider; and payment had been made based on invoices from that provider reflecting the care he had provided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in light of the testimony of the staff member¡¯s witnesses, including herself and the medical professional who had treated her son, it had not been erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that the Administration had failed to establish the medical...

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. However, the Tribunal found it receivable as it considered that the Applicant challenged the decision not to initiate an investigation into her complaint of potential prohibited conduct, and not the outcome of the management evaluation as argued by the Respondent.

Merits

The Tribunal recalled that it is not mandated to conduct a fresh investigation in the matter, nor to draw its own conclusions of the evidence. Instead, it is tasked with identifying whether the preliminary assessment was conducted properly based on the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member publicly engaged in acts of a sexual nature in a clearly marked United Nations vehicle, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had before it a video clip depicting the actions in question, which were clearly of a sexual nature.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the lawfulness of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member allowed an unauthorized female individual to board a United Nations vehicle assigned to him and to publicly commit acts of a sexual nature in the rear seat, bringing disrepute to the Organization and difficulties with the host country.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the case was not one where the issues required the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination of the credibility of contradicting testimonies of parties or witnesses and the lack of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing had not affected its decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT appropriately considered the former staff member's admissions, as well as the video clip...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...